NationStates Jolt Archive

Why so close?
Neither candidate is that brilliant.

Why so polarised?
There are hardly any undecided voters left.

Why so angry and vicious?
Get a life guys.

Americans please answer my questions now.

I believe it's so vicious because most of the people weighing in on the subject are so egotistically and arrogantly convinced of their intellectual and political superiority, that no one can even get them to listen to opposing views, much less respect them.

Everyone doesn't just believe, but are convinced, that they are right, are feel very passionately that all opposed are morons. It's sad.

Gone are the days of intelligent discourse and stimulating, issue-based debate. Before you can even get passed an opening statement, opponents attack and scoff. As an american citizen, it has been years since I have actually heard well-developed, though out, specific and detailed policies. Just headlines, followed by insulting rhetoric that assumes that I'm too stupid to know the difference.

Kind of an abrasive way to go about what could have been a decent question. The first one is unanswerable with it's qualifier. Neither of them being that 'brilliant' doesn't really adress closeness, it almost seems like an answer. They both share a trait you assigned them, so naturally it will be close.

The second is just a rephrase and is the honest and decent question. I'll step out of partisan pajamas to say it is because both parties have become extraordinarily good at marketing and managing media while media has become timid. There was a great bit on the Daily Show where one of the corrispondents talked about it was the medias job to spend half the time repeating what one party says and the other half repeating what the other says, a little thing called objectivity. That's whats become of our media, so it becomes who can better work the market. Republicans are more disciplined in this, I have to say.

Anger and viciousness is a byproduct of an important and ingaged election. I've seen "Prime Minister's questions" on C-Span. Don't pretend this is just us. As far as "Get a Life," we're not arguing whose going to win a sports match, it's who is going to determine the course of our country for the next four years. As a large market, huge exporter and an military that can be used with or without (apparently) say from anyone else in the world, I'd think who gets that job is an important decision. Hardly something that should be dismissed with 'Get a Life.' It's important, and will effect more than us, which is more than we need to have to care.

2 words: voting system

which includes: rules for getting on the ballot, electoral collage

2 words: voting system

which includes: rules for getting on the ballot, electoral collage

Electoral college.

...and how does that answer the fundamental questions, Chess?

You have a unique situation where the incumbant did not win a majority of the popular vote during the last election. Translated, more people voted against him than voted for him, but due to the antiquated electorial system in place in this country, since that majority was not located in the right places, Bush won anyways. That majority, who felt cheated last time, are determined to not let it happen again. That in a nutshell is why this election is so polarized/vicious/close.

Electoral college.

...and how does that answer the fundamental questions, Chess?
yes college, doing a couple hours of quadratic math will fuck up all knowledge systems

it is next to impossible for a jmember not of the main parties to get on the ballot, and not only that but to advertise. the 2 major parties have party moeny and a definate place on the ballots of every state. for a 3rd party candidate it takes thousands if not millions to get on the ballots and advertise.

electoral college is designed for only 2 parties and its set up polarizes the system. all votes from an entire state will go to the party of the majority the state voted for. the groups must stick together and stick to party lines unquestioningly if they want their candidate to win

To be honest the terrorists did this. The US was pretty much united by 9/11 then we slowly began to hate each other for whatever reason.

'United we stand. Divide we fall.'
This polarizing will be the death of us. It's true.

i blame the conservative talk show hosts (id blame the liberal ones too but no one listens to them anyway)

they make the political discourse particularily ugly, calling all liberals TRAITORS etc.

You have a unique situation where the incumbant did not win a majority of the popular vote during the last election. Translated, more people voted against him than voted for him, but due to the antiquated electorial system in place in this country, since that majority was not located in the right places, Bush won anyways. That majority, who felt cheated last time, are determined to not let it happen again. That in a nutshell is why this election is so polarized/vicious/close.

Yes, but you're forgetting something. The electoral college is in place to give the individual states equal voting power in proportion to their population. Fully 1/5 of America's population is in California...if based on popular vote alone, a candidate could almost tie up the election if he got all the californians to vote for him...leaving states like wisconsin with no federal voice.

Also, remember, that the members of the electoral college are not required to vote along party lines...the party that wins the popular vote sends the delegates to the college for that state, but the delegates can actually vote how they wish. There are some republican (and I presume, democrat) delegates planning to vote against their candidate in the college, just to prove a point.

Anger and viciousness is a byproduct of an important and ingaged election. I've seen "Prime Minister's questions" on C-Span. Don't pretend this is just us. As far as "Get a Life," we're not arguing whose going to win a sports match, it's who is going to determine the course of our country for the next four years. As a large market, huge exporter and an military that can be used with or without (apparently) say from anyone else in the world, I'd think who gets that job is an important decision. Hardly something that should be dismissed with 'Get a Life.' It's important, and will effect more than us, which is more than we need to have to care.
I'm going to expand on this piece. Part of the reason for the extreme viciousness in this election has to do with the fact that the Democratic party largely got tired of being called everything from "pussy" to "traitor" whenever they disagreed with the Republicans, and they finally started fighting back.

The level of discourse got noticeably lower about 15 years ago when Rush Limbaugh became a media phenomenon, and his spawn on talk radio have made Limbaugh seem respectable by comparison, if that's possible to believe. Throw in 8 years of constant personal, bullshit attacks on a sitting president, a contested election in 2000, more name-calling and the conflation of a sitting Democratic Senator with Osama Bin Laden, and the comparison by a prominent Republican fundraiser of bipartisanship to date rape (and that's a quote--Grover Norquist said it), and it's a wonder the Democrats didn't explode sooner.

So we've started hitting back, unapologetically, and with great force, and as a result, the rancor level has gone up exponentially. It's a healthy thing in my opinion, because it has gotten people to pay attention again, and because a lot of people who have gotten passes on some completely outrageous charges in the past are now getting called out on it, and their credibility is rightfully being tarnished.

The system's screwed up.

We have two major political parties that both suck, but no one will vote for a 3rd party because they feel that doing so is throwing their vote away.

That, and the conservatives manipulate people by exploiting their faith and patriotism. I mean that's the primary reason people like Bush, right? Out of their christian belief and nationalist pride?

electoral college is designed for only 2 parties and its set up polarizes the system. all votes from an entire state will go to the party of the majority the state voted for. the groups must stick together and stick to party lines unquestioningly if they want their candidate to winEver since Anderson got 20% of the popular vote in 80 more and more people are thinking there is something to alternative candidates. Unfortunately what they are usually thinking is how they can spoil a race.

Which is why I keep harping how an Instant Run-off Election system should surplant the existing electorial college. It would be the best thing to happen to American politics since the bill of rights.

Also, remember, that the members of the electoral college are not required to vote along party lines...the party that wins the popular vote sends the delegates to the college for that state, but the delegates can actually vote how they wish. There are some republican (and I presume, democrat) delegates planning to vote against their candidate in the college, just to prove a point.That depends on the individual state--most states have some protection in place that requires electors to vote as the state's popular vote decides. I say most because I read today that West Virginia (http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004090817/) apparently doesn't have such protections in place, and the Republican Mayor of South Charleston is thinking about not voting for Bush even if he wins the state of West Virginia.

PS--I'm an electoral college fan, even though the state I currently reside in and the one I'll eventually move to are both shafted by it.

Why so close?
Two terrible candidates.

Why so polarised?
Most voters are moronic sheep.

Why so angry and vicious?
Stupid people.

Why so close?
Two terrible candidates.

Why so polarised?
Most voters are moronic sheep.

Why so angry and vicious?
Stupid people.
Thank you, oh enlightened one. :rolleyes:

Actually, I think the anger stems from the fact that for the past few years, anyone who used their right to free speech was attacked as a traitor to the nation. When I noticed the idiocy of the current President, followed his lies that cost lives as opposed to simple respect as the the last President's, I realized that anyone but the Shrubbery is what the nation needs.

Yes, but you're forgetting something. The electoral college is in place to give the individual states equal voting power in proportion to their population. Fully 1/5 of America's population is in California...if based on popular vote alone, a candidate could almost tie up the election if he got all the californians to vote for him...leaving states like wisconsin with no federal voice.

Also, remember, that the members of the electoral college are not required to vote along party lines...the party that wins the popular vote sends the delegates to the college for that state, but the delegates can actually vote how they wish. There are some republican (and I presume, democrat) delegates planning to vote against their candidate in the college, just to prove a point.California's general population is closer to 1/10 of the US total. Even if some politician was able to do the impossible and get every state voter to vote for him he'd still likely lose. California has 55 electoral college votes, the same proportion to the electoral total as population to US total. Duh, as you said thats how the number of electoral votes is determined, by population. By your logic all a candidate would have to do is get california's electoral vote and they'd win, Guess what, it didn't work for Gore.

Why so close?
Neither candidate is that brilliant.

Why so polarised?
There are hardly any undecided voters left.

Why so angry and vicious?
Get a life guys.

Americans please answer my questions now.
First:
1) Why so close?
Kerry is more inelligent than Bush, but that isn't important I think. So you are wrong about neither brilliant, check their grades.

2) Why so polarised?
Blame reoublicans for attacking everyone who was not them when Clinton was President.

3)Why so angry and vicious?
Again, You can only be attacked so much before you must retaliate. Democrats and independants are angry at how badly repubs are running things. They say they are responsible but debt goes up for them...
They say state rights, but wants National amendaments.
Most people feel cheated or lied too.
Most people believe their vote determines President. They feel cheated that it only "kinda" does.

Gone are the days of intelligent discourse and stimulating, issue-based debate. Before you can even get passed an opening statement, opponents attack and scoff. As an american citizen, it has been years since I have actually heard well-developed, though out, specific and detailed policies. Just headlines, followed by insulting rhetoric that assumes that I'm too stupid to know the difference.
the deliberate dumbing down of the media with Foxnews leading the way

To be honest the terrorists did this. The US was pretty much united by 9/11 then we slowly began to hate each other for whatever reason.

'United we stand. Divide we fall.'
This polarizing will be the death of us. It's true.
the reason was Bushs contemptible lies arrogance and refusal to reach out to the other side

i blame the conservative talk show hosts (id blame the liberal ones too but no one listens to them anyway)

they make the political discourse particularily ugly, calling all liberals TRAITORS etc.
thats cause conservative hatemongers on the radio have a huge headstart whereas liberal radio hosts just came on for the very first time ever just this year and theyre already overtaking rightwing liars in the ratings game

its a very encoraging thing to see enlightened people finally fighting back against rightwing filth

Yes, but you're forgetting something. The electoral college is in place to give the individual states equal voting power in proportion to their population. Fully 1/5 of America's population is in California...if based on popular vote alone, a candidate could almost tie up the election if he got all the californians to vote for him...leaving states like wisconsin with no federal voice.

Also, remember, that the members of the electoral college are not required to vote along party lines...the party that wins the popular vote sends the delegates to the college for that state, but the delegates can actually vote how they wish. There are some republican (and I presume, democrat) delegates planning to vote against their candidate in the college, just to prove a point.
which made PERFECT sense...200 years ago, when the bigges state had maybe 9 electoral votes. 9 electoral votes now is chump change. the electoral college does NOT even up voting power. it just polarizes the nation by making sure alot of the natiosn votes dont count. if you dont vote with the majority of the state, your vote doesnt count, even if the guy you voted for ultimately wins, you know your vote didnt get him there, even by voting for him

the electoral college is outdated by at lerast 100 years

California's general population is closer to 1/10 of the US total. Even if some politician was able to do the impossible and get every state voter to vote for him he'd still likely lose. California has 55 electoral college votes, the same proportion to the electoral total as population to US total. Duh, as you said thats how the number of electoral votes is determined, by population. By your logic all a candidate would have to do is get california's electoral vote and they'd win, Guess what, it didn't work for Gore.

It was an exaggerated example to make a point.

the deliberate dumbing down of the media with Foxnews leading the way

The media, including Foxnews, can't change verbatim what the politicians say. I'm talking about Bush and Kerry, not the media. Take the media out of the equation, listen to Bush and Kerry, and you'll find that both speak only in rhetorical headlines.

which made PERFECT sense...200 years ago, when the bigges state had maybe 9 electoral votes. 9 electoral votes now is chump change. the electoral college does NOT even up voting power. it just polarizes the nation by making sure alot of the natiosn votes dont count. if you dont vote with the majority of the state, your vote doesnt count, even if the guy you voted for ultimately wins, you know your vote didnt get him there, even by voting for him

the electoral college is outdated by at lerast 100 years

200 years ago the biggest states had 9 electoral votes.
200 years ago we also had about 250 million less people

the electoral college is outdated by at lerast 100 years

the electoral college was known to be obviously broken by the third election we used it in.

200 years ago the biggest states had 9 electoral votes.
200 years ago we also had about 250 million less people
which only serves my point

don't blame me, I'm not voting for either.

don't blame me, I'm not voting for either.

i wonder if anybody is already printing up 'don't blame me, i voted for one of the other guys' bumper stickers? seems like you'd win with that one no matter who won the election.

the electoral college was known to be obviously broken by the third election we used it in.

You're going to have to back that up, as it appears that it has worked
perfectly well in every election, including 2000.

You're going to have to back that up, as it appears that it has worked
perfectly well in every election, including 2000.
oh sure, if you consider denying the person who was actually the favorite of the people the win in the election perfectly well..

You're going to have to back that up, as it appears that it has worked
perfectly well in every election, including 2000.

nah, they had to write the 12th amendment to even attempt to salvage it, and after that it wasn't doing the same sort of job it had originally anyway. it works pretty well at what it does now. but what it does is stupid.

Two points.

1 - All those who think the Presidential campaigns have reached levels of viciousness never before seen need to, respectfully, get a clue. Go to your local library and find some books detailing the Presidential campaigns throughout our nation's past. Don't stop in the 20th century and assume that folks were just too nice to do that back in the 19th century, or even 18th. You might just be amazed how incredibly cutthroat some of these campaigns were. Vicious and negative campaigning is about as American as apple pie, baseball, and Chevrolet.

2 - I absolutely support the he Electoral College, and would have said that even if Gore had won in 2000 with less of the popular vote. The EC is there to ensure States are not run rough-shod over. The ones it helps the most are the ones like Alaska and Montana, whereas California, Florida, and Texas are most harmed.

You all need to remember that the STATES, not the people, elect the President. The founders could just as easily have left out a direct vote at all and let the State legislatures decide who electors should vote for in the College. In other words, it is not one big national election on the 1st Tuesday in November, but 50 State elections to determine how that state shall vote. Keep in mind as well, that if the Electoral College fails to elect the President because no candidate gets the votes needed (it's happened twice), the election is thrown into the House of Representatives. In THAT situation, each State's delegation gets one vote total, making each State completely equal. Frankly, I wish that's how it worked in the electoral college, but oh well.

Also, it's still infinitely better, in my opinion, than just picking the leader of the majority party of Congress to arbitrarily be our Chief Executive like parlimentary systems do it. President Dennis Hastert anyone? No offense to the fine folks of the UK and others who do it this way, if that's how you like it then more power to ya. I'm just voicing my preference here.

As to why the election has gotten so vicious. you have to understand that a great number of people in America see the last decade and the current one as a time of extreme social change. Many people who would normally never have anything to say about an election see this current one as a referendum on the American way of life. If you vote for Bush, it means you support one way of life; while a vote for Kerry supports another.

The difficulty is that most people involved in the discussion of politics in America are incapable of seeing the other side's point of view, to most of the politically active, there is only one path, only one truth, and only one candidate.

Sadly, historically, Americans aren't typically led by rational discourse. Like most humans, we have the tendancy to sieze upon a volatile issue and declare it the only valid issue. Be it the war, the economy, abortion or whatever. Many people are voting for a specific candidate because he supports their view on one of these volatile issues. I know a great number of people who disagree with how Bush has handled the war and the economy, but will still vote for him because Kerry will "take away their guns". Uneducated, and uninformed decision, yes. But given the level of discourse in this country, not surprising.

Why so close?
Neither candidate is that brilliant.

Why so polarised?
There are hardly any undecided voters left.

Why so angry and vicious?
Get a life guys.

Americans please answer my questions now.
1) It's close because of the war and Bush's extremism.

2) It's polarized because of the war and Bush's extremism.

3) It's angry and vicious because of the war and Bush's extremism.

I have voted since I could legally cast votes.

It has been the harshest campaign I can remember.

However, as compared the past, it is rather tame. You don't hear things like one guy accusing the other guy of fathering illigitimate black children. :eek:

My theory is that it has multiple reasons.

1) The Christian types finally have a lapdog that will do anything they will say.
2) The economy is mediocre at best and neither guy has a solution.
3) War has always been an economy booster and its not.
4) We like to be the good guys and yet we look like the bad guys in Iraq.
5) People getting tired of the "Don't worry be happy" idiology. More and more I hear people complain that their employers have taken the attitude of "HEY your job is your reward"
6) Feeling worst off then their parents and grand parents. I have heard people say that they make more then their parents and yet they think they are worst off then them.
7) Stock Fraud. Businessmen ripped everybody off but the only one who seems to get getting punished is Martha.
8) Cost of living continously rises and salary reduces.


All in all. I guess "It's the economy stupid"

If Kerry will stop taking the AWOL bait and forget about VietNam, the shrub is done for.

The WallStreet times did a poll and 60% viewed things as bad. So the shrub and the repubs can talk all they want; but they have a perception problem.

I think the hostility will last about a month after the elections and then people will go back to worrying about their own lives again.....

I think the problem is that Bush is clearly bad for this country and has proven this so (although those who care more about whether or not teh gays get married than how well our country fares in the future would disagree). However, Kerry is not all that convincing that he will be better. So some of us our just angry that we don't really have a good choice.

It's kind of like setting down a bomb in front of me. I know cutting the red wire will make it blow up in my face, so I don't really want to touch that one. But the blue wire might make it chop my hand off. I have to cut one of them. What to do?

Well, to be brutally honest, their are still somewhere around 15%+ of undecided voters or likely voters that lean both ways. (I believe, it is to hard to give a specific number, my real guess would be 3%-45% with any margin of error of 11.45%. But of course this is just my broad guess as it can easily go whatever way possible).

Bush really isn't all that extreme in his views, he's just stubornly firm in them. If he we extreme, then he would have already have invaded Iran, Syria, and various other nations of intrest, outlawed abortion, stricken down the rights of minorities and women as equals to white males, etc etc. . . Rather, he has done what he has felt was in the best intrest of our nation, and while he's done things that have arguably benifited the ritch, he's following the ideals of strict capitalism. What Bush seems to forget is this. . . America is not, and Can not be a strict capitalism, we tried that, we got the monopolies of the late 1890's and early 1900's, we got massive slums filled with workers slowly starving to death and being worked to death, our environment suffered and our people suffered. Think Socialism is bad? well then, let's remove the FDA and let the drug companies sell you snake oil again, let's stop corportations from having to report what they are up to and how safe thier products are, let's remove welfar and turn the people who are poor workers into non-workers, let's remove healthcare so your employees can get sick longer, more, work less efficinetly, and pass that illness on to everyone else in the company, thus reducing over all company efficientcy.

Don't get me wrong, history proves that the socialism system as socialism only just doesn't work, America has a joint system. . . America needs a joint system, it's what makes this country great, why is this election so important? because the system broke down and we elected one mindset into all sections of office. . . the system would be just as bad if we had a democrat only group in power. Hopefully the system will balance out and either we'll get Kerry in office and a republican senate, or we'll keep Bush in office and get a democratic senate.

As for history, the battle between Andrew Jackson and his opponent was the harshest by far, compared to that one, Bush and Kerry look like best of friends.

The Electoral College. . . this is a big one, and alot of people are very, very polarized on it, however I've reached the following conclusions.

Each state has a certian number of votes

To win the presidency, a candidat needs a certian number of those votes, more than 50%

so far so good,

Each state is divided into districts, each district determines the amount of the state for each candidate

Each district has so many people in it, and the candidat needs to get more than 50% of the votes from a certain district to win.

Great

Problem

if a candiate gets 49% of a district he gets just as many votes as if he gets 0% of the district. . . none. . . this means that theoreticaly a candidate can get 51% of the votes in 51% of the districts, however, get 0% of the votes in 49% of the districts, and still win the state. that's about 1/4 of the population of the state voting for him, and he still gets it. . . wait a moment. . .

Further more, if he gets that state by 51% of the districts he gets that state's votes. . . all of them. . . and if he gets 0% then he gets none, the same amount as he would get if he got 49% of the votes. .. are we seeing the problem here yet?

so, if 25% of the population in 51% of the states voted for him, about 12% give or take of the population, then that person would technicly win the electoral college, but lose the popular vote by a land slide. tack onto that, that only about half of americans vote, that's 6% of the population being able to decide the fate for the other 94% of us.

Granted, that would require so much preperation and placement that it would boarder on fraud, however the fact that this can occure means that something should be done about the system, but how do we do this without disenfranchising smaller states that would still want a vote?

Do what we did in the House and Senate. Each state is worth a set number points, you get the state, you get those votes, even if you only got 25% of the state, and reguardless of the size of the state, each state has exactly the same number of votes. then, each of those districts gets one vote, you get that district, you get one vote. In theory, you would balance it out so that the total number of district votes would be equal to the total number of state votes. . . if you have 300,000,000 people, and each district is broken down into 100,000 people, then you would have 300,000 district votes, the states then, would be wroth 300,000 votes, each state coming out to about 6,000 points per state. This means that a state could be giving votes to two, or even three candidates, rather than the current winner takes all, and while it would be a pain in the ass to keep tract of 600,000 points, it would allow more candidates to run and would not be as difficult to admin. Note though, that this in no way reflects how it would be accualy broken down, the numbers are here for reference only, as each state already has house districts that could be used as tally points.

Just my oppinion though, I could be absoulutly and utterly insane.